This Weblog or "Blog" contains articles, events and opinions that support capital punishment in North Carolina and elsewhere. Author(s) of the contents are exercising their rights to free speech which unfortunately is often stifled or ignored by the media.
Contrary to what you might read or hear in the news, North Carolinians should be proud that an occassional and deserved execution is allowed to proceed.
- Wayne Uber

Saturday, December 08, 2012

Gross murder rates cannot be a valid
and consistent method of measuring deterrence, for a variety of well know
reasons (1).

A measurement of net changes in murders, meaning that there would be
more or less net murders, based upon executions or the lack, thereof, is the
proper calculation, whether or not gross murder rates, go up, down or stay the
same, just as with deterrence, all crimes and all crime rates.

As many
anti death penalty folks, including academics, wrongly, present some gross
murder numbers as a foundation for arguing against deterrence, I present
this:

HISTORY: MURDER RATES AND EXECUTION
CYCLES

Again, this is not how deterrence is measured (1),
however . . . .

1. The United States has had double digit executions,
annually, from 1984 - 2014 (3).

Murders are, now, at a 46 year low
(2),

Murder rates are, now, at a 57 year low. (2).

It's not
surprising that death sentences are at a 40 year low (3).

2. Double
digit annual executions stopped in the US in 1964 and resumed in 1984
(3).

During that period, murders increased by 100%

murders in
1964 9,360 (2)

murders in 1984 18,670 (2)

3. There was a
moratorium on all executions in the US from 1967 to 1977 (3).

During
that period, there was a 56% increase in murders (2).

murders is 1967
were 12,240 (2)

murders in 1977 were 19,120 (2)

TEXAS

Capital murders may have dropped by 80% or more in Texas since
1991 (2).

Murder in combination with robberies makes up, by
far, the largest percentage of death penalty eligible murders.

Murders
have dropped 55%, robberies 35% (2).

A much lower
occurrence of robbery/murders equals a much lower number of
death sentences.

The per capita robbery/murders will
have dropped even more dramatically, because Texas has seen a population
explosion during this period.

Murders rates have dropped 71%, robberies 60% (2).

The drop in capital murders is but the most
obvious and pronounced explanation for a drop in death sentences.

Contributions to that drop also include:

1) Plea bargains to
life without parole (LWOP) , a plea only possible with the death penalty;
2)
Two classes of murderers have been excluded from the death penalty, that being
those under 18 and those with mental retardation; and
3) Depending upon
conditions within individual jurisdictions, with a downturn in the economy, the
up front costs of the death penalty may have caused some jurisdictions to offer
either plea bargains or lesser than death penalty option trials, to a degree
more than in the past.

There is much confusion about deterrence, some, understandable and, some,
intentional.

There are many examples of murder rates dropping or being lower in death
penalty jurisdictions.

And many examples of murder rates dropping or being lower in non death
penalty jurisdictions.

In different instances, murder/crime rates might suggest deterrence or non
deterrence of sanctions.

In other words, gross murder/crime rates are not a consistent or accurate
method of showing or understanding deterrence (1). There are some deterrence studies which find a reduction in murders, soon after executions. Howevewr, I am, primarily, dealing with murders and murder rates for any given year.

Some anti death penalty folks work hard to muddy the waters - as with this
study, wherein some thought the criminologists had agreed that the death penalty
deters none, a finding not confirmed within the study and which cannot be
confirmed, ever.

Confusion and understanding, respectively, are revealed by these two
questions from a death penalty opponent.

Confusion: "If the deterrence contention holds true, why does the
enthusiastic application of the death penalty not suppress the overall murder
rate across all death penalty states?"

Then, with understanding:

"I understand your point that the death penalty has some deterrent effect.
Perhaps the citizens of South Dakota are simply more homicidal than their
northern neighbors, and without the death penalty keeping them in check, the
murder rate would go through the roof."

Yes, it has some deterrent effect, but it is clear he had not read the
provided deterrence studies because they contradicted his comment about murder
rates going through the roof.

The deterrent effect has a small impact
on murder rates, but a substantial savings in innocent lives, as reviewed
below.

The death penalty, as all criminal sanctions, deters some, which will be
reflected in net murder/crime rates, but not gross ones, consistently, as
explained: Whether murder/crime rates are high or low, whether they are rising,
falling or staying, roughly, the same, all sanctions deter some, in all
jurisdictions.

A perfect example of this is:

"Henderson, Nev., takes the No. 2 spot (America's Safest Cities) despite
its location within the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Las Vegas-Paradise,
which ranked ninth this year on Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous
Cities." (2)

Does this mean no potential criminals are deterred in Las Vegas-Paradise
and yet some are deterred in Henderson?

Of course not. Some are deterred in both.

It means that there are different factors in each jurisdiction which
provide for different crime rates, as with all jurisdictions, inclusive of the
deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, within both jurisdictions.

This should come as no surprise.

Death penalty opponent response: "However, the fact that murder rates are
lower across the board in non death penalty (USA) states suggests that there is
something else, some more effective deterrent which you would do well to
investigate, if you weren't hidebound by your single minded advocacy of the
death penalty."

They are not lower across the board. Even if they were, it could not
contradict the clear and accurate point.

Furthermore, anti death penalty folks neglect the obvious reality that
there are a very wide range of murder/crime rates between
communities/cities/counties, within each individual state, be they death penalty
or not, revealing the obvious error of the opponents intended point (3).

I think everyone knows that there are multiple deterrents to committing
crime: Morality, change of social status if caught, the prospect of being caught
and/or sanctioned, being the four most obvious (3)

Note that the 28 recent studies, finding for deterrence (4), find for
deterrence of from 1-28 murders prevented per execution. Deterrence was also
found to exist just by the presence of the death penalty statute.

While this represents a substantial and very important savings of innocent
lives, it has a small impact on murder rates.

The US has averaged around
33 executions per year since 1973, which equals a deterrent savings of innocents
lives of from 33 to 924 per year.

My estimate is that the US has averaged about 18,000 murders per years
since 1973 (5).

The deterrent effect provides a near negligible impact on the murder rate
(min 0.2% to max 5%), based upon those deterrence studies, but provides a huge
savings in innocent lives.

Even without those studies, most of us realize that all prospects of a
negative outcome deter some. It is an unqualified truism, for which no exception
exists. Some are so hidebound by their opposition to the death penalty that they
must find that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the
ONLY criminal sanction that deters none - a truly absurd notion.